New: Google Calendars to Track Key Election Dates
Plus: Digging into Michigan’s growing election-denial movement — and what it means for this November.
Do you know when mail ballot processing starts in Nevada? Or the deadline to petition a recount in Pennsylvania? Or when counties certify results in Georgia?
We’ve created Google Calendars you can subscribe to in order to help track the key dates and deadlines for post-vote election administration steps, including steps like when canvassing begins, the deadlines for recount requests, and certification deadlines.
You can subscribe to each state’s calendars here:
Michigan Calendar (and see more on this new state report, below)
And more states to come soon, including North Carolina, Ohio, and Wisconsin.
ICYMI: State Election Administration Reports
Over the last few months, we’ve been sharing our state election administration reports (and see below for our Michigan report released today). These reports dive deep into the election administration process in each state, breaking down the post-vote processes and the offices and administrators who oversee those steps. For each state, we’ve also analyzed potential vulnerabilities to be on the lookout for in the post-vote period.
If you’ve missed any of the reports, you can find them all in our report homepage on Notion. Here’s a quick overview of what we’re tracking across these key states:
Arizona
Over the last few years, strong executive actors in the state, notably the Secretary of State and Attorney General, have stepped up to reinforce the laws that safeguard elections in the state. Risk still exists from bad faith actors who have been willing to blatantly violate settled election law — and we should anticipate the past efforts to be repeated, which is why efforts to monitor elections in the state are vital.
Arizona Report | One-Pager Summary | Arizona Google Calendar
Georgia
Georgia was the epicenter of the election denial movement in 2020, and the alarming trends we saw back then have only intensified since. Georgia officials have added uncertainty into the election processes through statutory changes, and are continuing to pile on by adopting new rules governing the administration of elections just weeks before votes are to be cast. These changes have provided more levers for bad actors in official positions to disrupt or delay elections this year than were previously available to them in 2020. Georgia’s elections and election-denying officials will need to be closely watched this election.
Georgia Report | One-Pager Summary | Georgia Google Calendar
Nevada
There is a strong threat of election skepticism and denialism among Nevada’s election officials. Of the 91 officials who were researched, we found 30 who raised cause for concern — that’s 33% of officials. We’re encouraged to see the Secretary of State and the Attorney General aggressively pursuing legal remedies to fortify the systems against vulnerabilities, reaffirming what ministerial duties must be done without local discretion, and calling out anti-democracy efforts. We must do the same.
Nevada Report | One-Pager Summary | Nevada Google Calendar
Pennsylvania
While there are numerous safeguards in place to protect vote counting and certification in Pennsylvania, some vulnerabilities do exist. The most notable vulnerability is the decentralization of election administration, which leaves discretion up to the County Boards of Election on some decisions like ballot curing. While state law provides general uniformity in these processes, there are notable areas in which the County Boards of Election have broad discretion. This opens the door to an outsized influence from bad actors who need to be monitored this election.
Pennsylvania Report | One-Pager Summary | Pennsylvania Google Calendar
Michigan 2024 Vote Counting and Certification Report
Michigan Report | One-Pager Summary | Michigan Google Calendar
Michigan’s election administration is one of the most decentralized systems in the country, with elections administered by 1,603 county and local election officials.
The decentralized nature of Michigan’s election administration isn’t inherently problematic, but it does present more opportunities for bad-faith actors to intervene in the process. And the election denial movement in Michigan is anything but decentralized. These groups are well-coordinated, pushing for recounts and audits, as well as undermining the integrity of the state’s election system with claims of fraud.
We’ve also seen more widespread election denial among election officials. Our research reviewed members of Michigan’s 407 Boards of County Canvassers and County Clerks to identify individuals who could pose a threat to free and fair elections. Of those 407, 51 officials' actions raised concerns — that’s 12% of officials reviewed. And some of these officials have ties to in-state and national election denial groups.
Despite recent updates to state law that strengthened election integrity, including an amendment to the state constitution in 2022 that made it explicit that the certification of elections is a ministerial duty, there is a growing concern that these noted anti-democracy county election officials might attempt to refuse to carry out their responsibilities to certify the election results. And with an evenly split partisan composition of the Board of State Canvassers, a deadlock vote could delay the certification process in the state.
We hope this report shines a light on these Michigan officials and prevents them from using their power over the election process to override the voices of Michiganders.
You can find all of these findings in our latest report. The report includes:
A timeline for the post-vote processes, including vote counting and election certification, with different customizable view options. You can also subscribe to a Google Calendar of these key dates here.
A library of research on election personnel focusing on whether they may pose a threat to election administration, with supporting evidence.
An overview of the 13 counties of concern that are of note due to the willingness of officials to subvert election administration or entertain and potentially act on election conspiracy theories.
A critical analysis of potential vulnerabilities in Michigan’s election administration, touching on the widespread election denial among election officials, which could result in delays to certification.
For a summary of this report, please see our Key Findings One-Pager.
If you're a reporter with questions about the upcoming elections across any of these states or want to schedule a briefing with your newsroom, please email Ryan Thomas at ryan@zpstrategies.com.